2025 Chair Report
Today marks two months before the end of the transition from the National Mediator
Accreditation System (NMAS) to the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards (AMDRAS); an important advancement in the quality and consistency of mediation training and accreditation in Australia.
This Chair report provides an update on how the transition is tracking, and guidance to those who have and intend to submit applications under AMDRAS.
This report will cover:
- Recognised Accreditation Providers (RAPs) and Recognised Training Providers
(RTPs) - Applications for Alternative Pathways
- Applications for Special Frameworks
- Honorary Leading Mediators
- Specialist Accreditation
- Complaints-handling and other matters.
Recognised Accreditation Providers and Recognised Training Providers
Thank you to those who have submitted applications to date. There has been a steady flow of applications, with a number of our members granted Recognised Provider status over recent months.
All bodies that wish to become or continue as Recognised Accreditation Providers (RAPs) and/or Recognised Training Providers (RTPs) under AMDRAS will need to submit your applications over coming weeks. Ideally you will do so before the end of May to allow sufficient time for the volunteer members of the Board’s Application Assessment Committee to assess your application(s).
We encourage those bodies that are commencing or finalising their applications to refer to the Forms and Guidelines available on the AMDRAS website Home – AMDRAS
The Board has resolved to prioritise Recognised Provider (RP) applications given the current flow and an expected increase in applications over coming weeks, including by increasing resourcing to the Application Assessment Committee. Other types of applications will be dealt with as soon as reasonably possible, but that may take a little more time.
We also particularly wish to thank those who submitted applications during the early stages of the transition period for their patience and understanding whilst the Board improved its systems and processes for assessing applications.
Applications for Alternative Pathways
Part 4, Division 8 of AMDRAS recognises alternative pathways to the Certificate of Training (COT), the Certificate of Assessment (COA), and the Practicum Certificate, with section 34 stipulating that the Board may issue protocols about appropriate alternative pathways.
The Board has received a small number of applications for alternative pathways to the Practicum Certificate, to allow practitioners to apply for recognition as Advanced Mediators under section 15 of AMDRAS based on prior training or experience.
To assist those RPs that have or intend to submit applications for alternative pathways to the Practicum Certificate:
- The Board asks that all applications for pre-existing or new pathways be “mapped” to show their alignment to the requirements for the Practicum Certificate outlined in section 33 and Appendix 1, paragraphs 32 to 39 (inclusive) of AMDRAS, along with any points of difference. We do not expect alternative pathways to necessarily replicate the Practicum Certificate, but it is practically difficult to assess the reasonableness of a proposed alternative pathway without this information.
- Recognising the diverse nature of our RPs, the Board will be issuing protocols against all alternative pathways on a “case-by-case” basis.
- RPs can expect the protocols issued against alternative pathways to involve a commitment to the pathway as approved, and structure around how applications by practitioners for Advanced Mediator status are to be assessed by the RAP.
Applications that include this detail will more likely be assessed and granted, without the need for requests for further information from the Board, and within reasonable timeframes.
In providing this guidance, the Board encourages all RPs that are presently contemplating an alternative pathway to the Practicum Certificate to consider encouraging their eligible practitioners to complete a Practicum Certificate as outlined in sections 30 to 33 (inclusive) and Appendix 1, paragraphs 32 to 39 (inclusive) of AMDRAS rather than through a newly developed alternative pathway. That approach is likely to be easier and quicker for most practitioners.
It is critical to the integrity of our system that practitioners who are recognised as Advanced Mediators have completed a Practicum Certificate or an equivalent alternative pathway.
Applications for Special Frameworks
The Board is conscious that practitioners will be unable to gain Leading Mediator status for some years under section 16 of AMDRAS without meeting the requirements of a “special framework” that may be offered by their RAP, once approved by the Board.
To assist those RAPs that have or intend to submit applications for special frameworks, the Board asks that all applications include detail as to how each proposed framework addresses the factors outlined in section 16(c) of AMDRAS. The Board also encourages RAPs to include detail of the process they intend to follow to assess applications for Leading Mediator status.
For clarity, it is intended that all practitioners who become accredited as Leading Mediators by reference to an approved special framework will have completed mediation training, will be highly experienced in mediation practice, and will have demonstrated commitment and leadership over an extended period.
Applications that show how RAPs will assess these matters in a consistent way are more likely to be responded to within reasonable time frames and without the need for the Board to request further information.
Honorary Leading Mediators
Section 16(d) of AMDRAS allows RAPs to submit applications for an individual practitioner to be recognised by the board as an Honorary Leading Mediator.
The Board is pleased to announce that one such application has been granted, and invites all RAPs and members of our mediator and dispute resolution community to consider those practitioners who may be appropriately nominated for this level of recognition.
It is intended that Honorary Leading Mediator status be granted to those practitioners who have made, and continue to make, a significant contribution to mediation practice and mediation as a profession over many years. This may be shown through professional practice, education and leadership, and will not involve assessment against a particular alternative pathway or special framework. Each application will be assessed by the Board on its merits, and against the intent of this level of recognition.
The Board encourages RAPs that are thinking of submitting an application that a practitioner be recognised as an Honorary Leading Mediator to contact the Board in the first instance. We will then connect, to answer any questions and provide support through this process.
Specialist Accreditation
Under section 17 of AMDRAS, the Board may specify criteria for specialist accreditation, either on its own motion, or on application from an organisation or organisations.
Whilst the Board has previously noted areas of practice that may become the subject of specialist accreditation in the future, we are yet to initiate discussions with relevant bodies given our focus on the current transition to AMDRAS. It is expected the Board will commence these discussions with certain practice areas in 2026 and beyond.
That being said, we are pleased to report that we have received one application for a Specialist Dispute Resolution Practitioner program, which we are currently working through with the applicant.
To assist those organisations or practice areas that may be contemplating applying to the Board for approval of a Specialist Dispute Resolution Practitioner program:
- Whilst the Board invites applications from standalone organisations for the approval of Specialist Dispute Resolution Practitioner programs, it is not intended that any successful applicant will have exclusive rights to deliver training and accreditation for their particular area of specialisation.
- When a specialisation is introduced by the Board (on its own motion or on application by an organisation or organisations), the Board is required to set and publish criteria for that specialisation, including CPD and practice requirements.
- Those criteria will be available to other organisations for the purposes of training and accreditation.
- Only one set of criteria will be set and published by the Board for each area of specialisation, albeit that each set may potentially include more than one pathway.
- All Specialist Dispute Resolution Practitioner programs will need to meet the minimum criteria set by the Board, and require Board approval.
- This does not prevent organisations from seeking approval of Specialist Dispute Resolution Practitioner programs to meet their needs and those of their members, subject to those programs meeting the minimum criteria set by the Board.
It was and remains the intent of specialist accreditation that this apply to areas of practice that require or would benefit from a level of divergence from the requirements of AMDRAS, including by way of alternative or additional training, assessment, CPD and practice requirements.
For these reasons, the Board encourages those organisations that are contemplating applying to the Board for approval of a Specialist Dispute Resolution Practitioner program to engage with others that practice within their area of specialisation. If you believe that a particular area of specialisation is worthy of recognition, but the practitioners may not meet all requirements of AMDRAS, we remind you that the Board has a broad power to waive requirements for initial accreditation (at any level) in exceptional circumstances.
We also encourage those organisations to contact the Board before submitting your application. We intend to work with and support all applicants and practice areas that have an interest in being recognised as a specialisation under AMDRAS, but wish to do so efficiently and with minimal duplication.
Complaints-handling and other matters
A reminder that all RAPs and RTPs must have and maintain a complaints-handling policy that meets the requirements of section 66.2 of AMDRAS. That section requires RPs to provide evidence that they have adopted the model complaints-handling policy at Appendix 5 of AMDRAS, or a different complaints-handling policy approved by the Board.
To allow efficient processing of applications, the Board asks that all bodies that wish to become or continue as RAPs and/or RTPs under AMDRAS to include this detail in your applications.
The Board is conscious that certain of our RPs are subject to regulatory and statutory requirements, hence sections 8, 62 and 66.2(b) of AMDRAS, the latter of which allows RPs to seek approval of the Board of a complaints-handling policy that meets the minimum requirements and which may require a RAP to limit its role due to such regulatory and statutory requirements.
The Board has received, and expects further, applications from RPs seeking approvals of complaints-handling policies under section 66.2(b), coupled with the seeking of exemptions in respect of sections 80 and 81 of AMDRAS that pertain to the Board’s auditing function and power to hear complaints respectively.
Whilst the Board has express power to approve different complaints-handling policies under section 66.2(b), and intends to do so where an RP is subject to regulatory and statutory requirements, we are presently considering the best approach to the question of waivers and exemptions in respect of other provisions. These are likely to come in the form of a general protocol or protocols, issued under section 83, and consistent with the Board’s incidental powers and functions under section 84, of AMDRAS.
It can be expected that any approvals and protocols issued by the Board will likely carry a condition that if an RP becomes aware that a complaint against a registered practitioner for whom it is responsible cannot be or has not been investigated or processed under the regulatory and statutory scheme to which the RP is subject, that RP must ensure the complaint is properly investigated and processed outside of that scheme and in line with the AMDRAS model policy.
This proposed condition is informed by instances where those responsible for administering regulatory and statutory schemes have elected not to investigate and respond to complaints against registered practitioners in the past, for reasons specific to their role and jurisdiction. Rather than require further detail and reporting from those RPs that are subject to regulatory and statutory schemes, the Board considers a general protocol may be the most appropriate approach to ensure all complaints are dealt with appropriately, including in the interests of consumer protection.
We invite any RPs that are subject to regulatory and statutory schemes, and that have queries or concerns in this regard to contact the Board. We also ask those bodies that are seeking approvals and exemptions to provide brief details of the relevant regulatory and statutory schemes to which they are subject. Again, it is expected this will allow efficient processing of applications.
Here to Help
We invite those who have questions regarding any application process to send an email to [email protected], and we will endeavour to respond as soon as possible. We wish to work collaboratively with you through this process.
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the AMDRAS Board, particularly those sitting on the Application and Assessment Committee. The transition from NMAS to AMDRAS has been, and continues to be, a significant exercise for a Board of volunteers, requiring countless hours of work. We are extremely fortunate to have a team of experienced, diverse and passionate professionals guiding us through this important transition.
The Board remains committed to supporting you, our community, by responding to all applications as soon as practicable with the resources available.
Thank you again for your patience, and support.
Stephen Dickinson
AMDRAS Chair